Maniac

[Beate]

You're forgetting that 90 minutes used to be standard feature length for a film until someone decided there is no way they can tell their important story in that time and gradually this shifted so that now 120 minutes seem to be the norm. I don't agree with the fact that a film should be as long as possible to get value for money. A lot of great movies are shorter and a lot of godawful crap is over 2 hours long - I'd rather go for quality over quantity and not have my whole evening taken up. Also, it's bad business for the cinemas who have to put on fewer screenings per day if the films are longer, thus losing out on revenue. I guess it's some reason why so many films are now 3D, so that they at least make some money with 3D glasses and higher film prices (except from me, I have about 50 pairs at home by now).

[stuartboy]

Fair point about the 90 minutes, but in those days we also had a B-feature - another short movie or documentary that was shown alongside the main feature.
My points remains. Is it OK to have a short movie (regardless of quality) yet charge the same amount as a 3 hour epic? Obviously the cinemas will be over the moon with shorter films as they can squeeze more screenings into a day and rake in more money from the unsuspecting public.
Also. If a movie IS that good then I think I'd like more of it rather than less.

I simply think that 89 mins is disappointingly short.

I may well stand corrected after having seen the film. It could be the ideal length and achieve its purpose, getting its message over perfectly in the time it takes. We can all think of films that both feel they could be longer as well as those that drag on and on, outstaying their welcome and ought to have several feet of film editted onto the cutting room floor.

[elski]

At 89 mins it was too long! for me 20 mins could have been taken out of it of the most gory stuff and it would have been more watchable. There were about 6-10 people that walked out did there own version of cutting it short.

[deb1]

Just back from Glasgow, seen film with OH and Teddybear1, 89 minutes of this film was far too long for me! I didn't enjoy it at all. Felt there was little story, too much unnecessary gore and was very disappointed. I wouldn't recommend.

Only 2 people left after about 30 minutes and I'm surprised that more didn't follow. We stayed in the hope that it would get better!

Just as well we all like different things I suppose!

[moggers]

I had babysitters and everything for tonight but the wibbly wobbly camera work is not good for me as I get motion sick so we decided to give it a miss.

[Lambino81]

I watched the Good Friday screening at Bristol Cineworld, the cinema had 18 people to watch this film, I watched 5 walk away from this film.
I'm not the biggest fan of the horror genre, but I'm up for a good one, the very first Saw film for instance.
This film started off really brightly, I liked the First person view, and the first kill of the film, had some humor with it.

After that, what a waste of an eveing, I'm still wondering of I should have been the 6th person to walk out....
2/10 at a push.

[badcoverversion]

A mediocre gorefest reminiscent of the equally dull but nasty Driller Killer. The third act was particularly poor but the score and sound design was a real highlight. 5/10

[badcoverversion]

Oh and I noticed 4 'walkers' in Bolton.

[yogi]

Oh and I noticed 4 'walkers' in Bolton.

Zombies!!!

[badcoverversion]

Oh and I noticed 4 'walkers' in Bolton.

Zombies!!!

I just knew as I typed it that somebody might pick up on the terminology...but 'walker outers' didn't have the same ring to it.